Promising Programs for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer/Questioning Runaway and Homeless Youth

Background:

As many as 40% of runaway and homeless youth (RHY) are estimated to identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ). LGBTQ-specific resources are needed to address the unique circumstances surrounding the antecedents to and consequences of LGBTQ runaway behavior and homelessness. However, such services are in short supply. Given the growing problem of homelessness among LGBTQ youth, coupled with the risk factors specific to this population and the lack of services to address these challenges, it is urgent to identify existing—and develop new—programs that integrate the best research evidence with clinical expertise and LGBTQ-affirming values. This qualitative study thus answered two research questions: 1) What are the promising programs being used across the United States to serve LGBTQ RHY?; 2) What can be learned from these promising programs to guide practice, policy, and research with LGBTQ RHY?  

Methods:

In this qualitative study, researchers conducted telephone interviews with 24 agency directors and program staff from 19 LGBTQ RHY-serving organizations. Participating organizations were located in the Northeast (n = 7), South (n = 2), Midwest (n = 5), and West (n = 5). Researchers developed the interview guide based on gaps in the literature, their own practice experience with LGBTQ RHY, and input from service providers. Researchers used template analysis to code and analyze interview transcripts.

Results:

Organizations offered two types of programs: 1) integrated programs that included services for all sub-groups of LGBTQ RHY as well as for heterosexual and cisgender youth; and 2) separate programs that included services for specific sub-groups of LGBTQ RHY. Integrated promising programs and services were identified in seven areas: a) health services (e.g., Be Proud! Be Responsible!); b) mental health (e.g., Transitions Ahead) and substance use services (e.g., Street Smart); c) case-management services (e.g., Living Room program); d) family services (e.g., Family Acceptance Project); e) legal (e.g., Streetwise & Safe) and mediation services (e.g., Transformative Justice Model); f) educational and employment services (e.g., Supported Education and Individual Placement and Support); and g) housing services (e.g., Host Home program). Further, separate promising programs and services were used for specific sub-populations of LGBTQ RHY, namely, transgender and gender-variant youth (e.g., Center for Transyouth Health and Development). Despite the marketing of these separate programs to specific sub-groups, all LGBTQ, heterosexual, and cisgender youth were welcome to attend. Collectively, integrated and separate programs were characterized by five novel program components: a strong reliance on clinical evidence; use of a trauma-informed approach; provision of safe, stable, and supportive housing; incorporation of peer providers from the LGBTQ community; and opportunities for reciprocal learning between LGBTQ and heterosexual RHY.

Conclusions:

Educators, practitioners, policy makers, and researchers serving this population might benefit from knowledge of these promising programs for LGBTQ RHY as well as the five promising program components identified in this study. This knowledge can in turn facilitate collaboration among practitioners, policy-makers, and researchers on future intervention research projects to identify program outcomes and to provide outcomes’ data to policy-makers to inform decision-making on RHY legislation.